Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-28-16 CHC Correspondence - Item 1 (Schmidt)Lomeli, Monique Subject: RE: CHC Monday Meeting From: Richard Schmidt [maifto:slobuiid(o)yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, March 25, 2016 11:11 AM To: Advisory Bodies Subject: CHC Monday meeting Please distribute this message to members of the CHC RE Item 1, Sandford House, March 28, 2016 Dear Cultural Heritage Committee: CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO MAR 2 5 2016 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Meebno: -3 a8 i Item: 1 As Allan Cooper has so brilliantly pointed out, the CHC cannot make the finding of conformity to the city's historic guidelines nor the secretary of interior's standards because the project's house moving scheme meets neither standard. So, you should just turn down this request and deny your portion of this dreadful project. I would make a few additional points: 1. To claim moving the house doesn't diminish its esthetic or historic presence is daft. The house sits at the top of a rise, overlooking the valley which some years after its construction would become the city of San Luis Obispo. It sits there, on its promontory, surrounded by tall historic trees. How will moving it, sans trees, downslope to a small corner of the property preserve its historic meaning and physical presence? Clearly, it cannot. The house needs to stay where it is, with its ancient trees, and the proposed necklace of tatty out -of -context apartments needs to go back to LA or some other non - contextual place where it would be more appropriate. 2. As an architect who has experienced building moving, I seriously doubt this structure can be moved in the manner being presented to you. For one thing, the solarium addition will most likely be lost in a move since it is an addition, of different construction from the rest, sits on a separate foundation, appears not up to the construction quality needed for a move. I seriously wonder if the rest of the building is capable of being moved in one piece, or at all. My prediction is if you approve this "move," there will be an "Oops!" moment when all will be lost, and the developer gets what he really wants, a totally empty building site. Don't be seduced by their reassuring talk — moving this large house with many parts is not a simple proposition. 3. The proposed new location of the house has it facing an "adjacent parcel" not part of the project, between the front of the house and Palomar. What is this parcel? Could a building be erected there to block the front of the relocated house? If so, its historic facade would be in somebody else's back yard, not even visible from the street. 4. 1 would point out that the relocation, even if it met other criteria, clearly does not meet required criterion #2 of the city's historic preservation ordinance: `^{2} Relocation will not have a significant adverse effect on the character of the historic district or neighborhood, or surrounding properties where the resource is located or at its proposed location." Since the only reason for the relocation is to provide a site for overly -dense apartments, and the apartments will be extremely abusive to the abutting R-1 neighborhood, this finding of no "significant adverse effect" simply cannot be made. Note that the only reason this property was zoned R-4 was out of deference to the established fraternity use, which required such zoning. The city dropped the ball by not rezoning it back to R-1 when the fraternal use ceased. Physically, this site is completely separated from the adjacent R-4 — uphill and a part of the neighborhood above, not part of the apartments below. The homes surrounding the site are nice homes, where families live. With this incredibly dense student apartment complex stuck right next door, with not even a token buffer, how long do you think this neighborhood will survive as a good place to live? The abusive apartments will lead to yet another workforce housing neighborhood becoming a student rental neighborhood, and that many more working people will be commuting to work in SLO from someplace else instead of livinn horn Thie nrniorf ie nnf in thn ritv'e haet infaraete Ite mnvinn nhonri ie Hancnrlcnf i innn vni it approval of a house move that's unsupportable. 5. Trees. The negative declaration of environmental impact's assessment of tree removal is incompetent and without merit. It simply fails to look at what's there and its wildlife and public health functions. To wit: a. The Araucaria trees are unique within the city, yet I don't even see them mentioned in the initial study, unless they are what's referred to as "pine trees," which they are not. Are there any better Araucaria hetrophylla trees in town? I don't know of any. These are landmarks. They are remarkable. To chop them down would be criminal. b. The tall trees are an integral part of the historic fabric of this neighborhood. Chop them down, and we're anyplace USA, which seems to be what city hall wants us to become. c. The tall trees' habitat features are glossed over. These are primary owl and hawk habitat. This is very important. There are ever fewer tall trees in this part of town to provide such habitat. This is important not only in its own right, for these are important urban avian species, but as a pubic health matter. The unsanitary palm trees planted around a couple of other nearby apartment developments are full of rats. FULL of rats! The owls and hawks feast on them, and help keep the rat population down to where we don't have plague worries in the middle of our town. Cut down the trees, the owls and hawks will have no home, and the rats will overrun our homes and bring their filthy fleas with them. (If you walk down the Murray median in summer, you'll find on the ground not only owl pellets, but rat parts from the feasting overhead.) d. Whoever wrote the initial study and stated there are no native trees on the site needs to become familiar with our native oaks, which are present. The mature trees are an integral part of the historic site that's before you for examination, so please assert your authority over this aspect of this dreadful design. The number of mature trees to be removed needs to be dialed back substantially, and the major trees like the Araucarias need to stay for sure. In conclusion, this project doesn't pass the historic preservation tests it must pass. Please flunk it and do something great for our city. Sincerely, Richard Schmidt P.S. You might want to consider what a great addition to our park system this historic site could become. Neighbors are encouraging the city to acquire it for this parkless part of town, and to convert the house — Jack House -like -- into an activity space for public use. Please send your sentiments, individual and collective, to the city council that this would be a better use of the property than wrecking it for student apartments.